Talk:GameStop short squeeze/Archive 2

Shares shorted, in table and/or chart
Here is the start of a data set about the amount of GME shares shorted, as size and change are critical factors in this event.

Please add values.

Share price was roughly the same during the first half of 2020, and Short Interest was steady between 53 and 68 million shares. When share price increased by August, Short Interest also increased. The 2020 chart is here, more estimates available here from industry analyst.

Please notice that "Float" also varies - not clear why or how. It may be added a few places. It is important that the references are marked as "Dead" to retain the original values, otherwise the reference shows the recent values instead. The values are the same in each source, although the dates are slightly different. TGCP (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for this work. However, this looks to me like original research using raw data/primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and I don't think it is adequate to include it in this article. Besides, I have already have to remove a handful of S3 research tweets cited in this article and on "Short squeeze", all obviously in breach of WP:SPS. I am not saying you have anything to do with this suspicious phenomenon — just stating the facts.--JBchrch (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yahoo and MarketBeat quote direct data from New York Stock Exchange, so WP:PRIMARY source is allowed here as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". It is the same source just repeated at different points in time, so there is no Original Research either.
 * This data is the foundation for the event, and is the source of interpretations such as "39%" and "140%" of short interest relative to float, as reported by various sources (at different times, obviously). Omitting this data is a loss to the core accuracy of the article, and leaves grey areas open to subjective viewpoints, of which there many, and often subtle to avoid detection for the sake of making money. That is not conforming to the spirit of Wikipedia. For the record, I have no position in this debacle, nor have I had or intend to. TGCP (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis. As you said it yourself, it's raw market data coming straight from the NYSE. It requires interpretation to state anything meaningful at all — for instance you read it as "avoiding detection for the sake of making money", but I could read it as something else if I knew how to interpret that kind of data. As you also said, it's the primary material on which the secondary sources (the ones on which we are supposed to rely on) base their articles. Subjective viewpoints is what we are supposed to based articles on, as stated very clearly in WP:SECONDARY. But you can ask WP:NORN if you maintain your view.--JBchrch (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify a few things here. An article can include primary as well as secondary sources as per policy (repeat: "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts") - primary sources are not excluded. I specifically avoid making an analysis of this data (it seems you misunderstood that), I merely point out the potential of false analysis WITHOUT this data. There are interpretations of the data already in the article, but the data itself is simple and uncontroversial. TGCP (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply presenting the data from a primary source is absolutely permitted, as long as the primary source is reliable.Rlendog (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I will bow to the consensus on market data. However, I hope we can agree that material from Shortsight/S3 Research/Ihor Dusaniwsky is self-published.--JBchrch (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Keith Patrick Gill - Separate Article?
Doesn't he have enough coverage to warrant his own article? Please forgive the poor formatting, I'm on mobile at the moment and not very familiar with manual markup.

Example coverage:

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/keith-gill-drove-the-gamestop-reddit-mania-he-talked-to-the-journal-11611931696

https://nypost.com/2021/01/29/meet-the-redditor-who-led-the-gamestop-stock-market-frenzy/amp/

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-keith-gill-drove-gamestop-reddit-mania-to-gains-worth-millions-20210129-couaill75vbylene6anbk7t3y4-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/roaring-kitty-reddit-gamestop-markets.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/29/famed-gamestop-bull-roaring-kitty-is-a-massachusetts-financial-advisor.html

DrGvago (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Asked myself the same question, but I would advise that we wait a few days before judging his WP:NOT. For the moment, it may just be his 15 min of fame.--JBchrch (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless it can be established with third-party sources that this person is notable for other reasons, such an article would likely fall under WP:BLP1E. -- benlisquare T•C•E 09:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded, though nothing stops you from being bold and attempting to create the page if you feel it should exist. Just do know it will likely be removed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To further my own understanding, would this event not be significant enough to at least make #3 irrelevant on WP:BLP1E and how does that work if only 2 exclusionary criteria are met? I think it's reasonable to suspect that most would agree this is a fairly significant event. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that his notability is only through this one BLP1E event, so it would not be appropriate to create a separate article about him. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't hink he qualifies because so far he's only known for this event. If he pulls something crazy again and is covered because of that, notability is certainly adequate for a separate article. Loganmac (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have started an article Keith Gill (Reddit user) (which was a redirect), mostly copied from this article. If anyone wants to contribute to it and clean it up, feel free to do so. He does have a ton of references, but I am not sure if he is WP:BLP1E. Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for deletion/DeepFuckingValue, citing WP:BLP1E. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition to "See Also"
Can we please add the South Sea Company?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company

66.207.125.110 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Also, if I'm looking at the right company here, it seems that the South Sea Company went defunct in 1853. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ change seems pretty clear to me; not sure why AllegedlyHuman seems confused by it Reyne2 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For context, the South Sea Company was the subject of a large historic bubble similar to the Dutch tulip bubble. Loki (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it is not yet certain whether or not this short squeeze will be a bubble, could it be an improper assumption to link to the South Sea Company, which is primarily known for the bubble?Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding content and change sub-heading name for "Decline and selling of stock purchases"
GME stock sharply fell due to the restrictions placed by brokerage firms and by those who originally held stock cashed in their prize. Adding content here would be appreciated. Not sure whether "Decline and selling of stock purchases" is the right phrase. It definitely did decline due to a multitude of factors, such as restrictions, holders selling to cash in, etc. Unsure whether to rename it to "Selling", "Decline", "Fall", or something else. Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"Reactions" section
I think all sources cited should be independent, rather than tweets, to make sure that the subjects we mention are given WP:DUEWEIGHT. As this is a major incident, many people have given their takes on it, but we should only include the most important of those, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed--JBchrch (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this falls on WP:NOTEVERYTHING, these are reactions that have been covered in multiple RS. It's important to convey that there been politicians, general users and celebrities/influencers that have had similar reactions. Loganmac (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly–my point is that we should use those RS instead (WP:SECONDARY over WP:PRIMARY). The WP:EVERYTHING comment was out of a concern of demonstrating that certain opinions had sufficient notability themselves in the context of an international news event. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since this event played out over social media, I think, retweets/top-reddit-comments should be considered a valid criteria to judge reactions as "notable" and hence encyclopedic (even if mainstream media shuns it)? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As a rule, Wikipedia defers to secondary sources over primary sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch Hi, it has come to my attention that I have been adding reactions from independent reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability under WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUEWEIGHT which keep getting reverted. I don't see much need for a consensus on my edit citing reliable and notable sources and thus aim to add my edits back. If a consensus is reached or explanation is given, then I will reconsider. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameStop_short_squeeze&oldid=1004228450 Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it would have been preferable to come here to solve this issue before adding them back and RE-adding them back. I am pretty neutral on the issue, but I am pinging .--JBchrch (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. While a discussion is ongoing, let's work to resolve it per WP:BRD. Any additional input is valued. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AllegedlyHumanJBchrch Alright if you have a difference of opinion we can discuss :) I am to add info from independent, reliable, secondary, and notable sources under Wikipedia's policies. I don't see how putting info cited by LA Times, Politico, the Guardian and the Sunday Times violates those policies. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was going to let AllegedHuman speak first, but considering your latest edits I fell the need to say something. Information added to wikipedia needs to be notable. It is not sufficient that it is cited by a reliable source. This is covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:WEIGHT. In this kind of highly-covered event, we need to be careful about which information is actually going to improvise the quality of this article and which information is just noise distracting the reader. A lot of reliable sources are putting out a lof of content, and if we don't use judgement to select what is actually relevant, this article will become a useless glob of disparate information very quickly. This applies especially to the reactions section, since everyone has an opinion but not everybody's opinion is valuable to the reader.--JBchrch (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree JBchrch thanks for the feedback. I get that editors don't cite everybody's reactions on social media that gets reported by the press only ones that follow WP:EVERYTHING and are notable. If you are referring to the "Decline in value" section, I was adding info relevant to that section as of this month. If you have an issue with the specificity of my edits, I can generalize it instead. If you are referring to the "Reactions" section, I was adding info from the other perspective to keep WP:NPOV instead of one line from Cooperman. Bernie's response to Cooperman also merited its own article in multiple news media. Or do you feel that the other perspective is not notable? Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. As a general rule I am not really in favour of documenting "reactions to reaction". Obviously if Vladimir Putin reacts to Joe Biden, this might have to be included, but I am afraid that Bernie Sanders reacting to Cooperman does not. Let's see if other editors think differently. Regarding the "Decline" section, I feel like the consensus (looking at the edits) is to keep what we have for the moment, which is broadly consistent with the first edit you did when you created this section. WP:BRD applies, I guess 🤷.--JBchrch (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * JBchrch Thanks for the response :). I was wondering why it was controversial to delete Bernie's response when it has already been reported on multiple times in the news media. Furthermore, the comparison of the redditors to the Capitol mob has also been reported multiple times, notably by the former SEC Commissioner (and other CNN and NYT pages), and likewise my edits added kept getting reverted. Yeah WP:BRD, I got into editing last Nov and avoid arguments with people on talk pages. I was hoping that others would refine by adding another source whenever it was noted that the info I added was lacking, though info I add that is cited by multiple sources keeps getting reverted or deleted as "non-notable". Is not appropriate for a current event to follow WP:NPOV and have both perspectives? Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed those edits as the people you were discussing do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline enough to have their own articles. As such, I do not believe their responses should be included when documenting responses to a major international incident per WP:EVERYTHING. Also, NPOV dictates that the most widespread views should be covered the most. As I'm sure you have seen, far more notable figures have spoken out in favor of the Redditors than against them, though if a notable figure (like Jimmy Kimmel, for example) opposes them, their response should be added. Doing so will naturally give the article due weight. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

, on Bernie, I think editors followed "subconsciously" the rule of thumb I have mentioned about reactions to reactions. I did not necessarily agree with other editors regarding the deletion of the "capitol mob" comment. I think you were just a little early with your edit, and various additional reliable sources "proved" the notability of this comment only after it was reverted. Maybe you could add a new section to this talk page to gather everyone's opinion on the matter. And you really should not be afraid of talk pages. Full blown arguments rarely occur as most issues are solved through consensus. If the community disagrees with you, you can just stop arguing with people/participating in the discussion, accept their opinion and start working on something else. Cheers.--JBchrch (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Let me just add that consensus often means that everyone gives their opinion individually, no one really argues with one another, and the majority view is accepted as consensus.--JBchrch (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relationship of this article with DeepFuckingValue
This article has been amended to reflect that an article on DeepFuckingValue has been created. This may continue to happen over the next few days. However, the article on DeepFuckingValue may be deleted momentarily for various reasons, in which case I think that such edits will have to be reverted. Also, we might have to create a subsection here on DeepFuckingValue, but let's wait and see whether the article is actually deleted. Any comments are welcome.--JBchrch (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I will add the other edits that I see here:--JBchrch (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that there is an article about DeepFuckingValue does not mean that relevant information about that person should be removed from this article. On the contrary, that person and their relationship to the GameStop short squeeze should be adequately described in this article without readers needing to go read some other article. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Analysis
Hopefully we are getting at a stage where we see what this might portend. The following notes that Robinhood got a huge cash infusion yesterday, so looks fine. Bubble crises averted? but what about down the road? "None of the moves had much to do with underlying economic fundamentals. Instead, fevered trading of the last week shows all the markings of a market mania that historically ends in big losses for small traders, sharp pull-backs by big investors and regulatory investigations . . . Wall Street already has been defying gravity for the last year, soaring to record highs and lofty valuations in the face of a brutal global pandemic that still poses considerable economic risks as virus variants spread before vaccines can take hold . . . " ...“Anyone can go on these platforms and tout a stock or a commodity they own and get a big following and then dump it. It’s pump and dump in a totally new, viral format and there are huge risks that need to be looked at right now or we could be in very serious trouble.”. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The goal of Wikipedia is not to "portend". See WP:CRYSTALBALL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, but Crystalball only applies when there are no sources ("Unverfiable"), which is why I provided a source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent structural changes
, I have reverted your structural edits on the following grounds: --JBchrch (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous structure had broad consensus and was much more readable. At a glance, you could see what the building blocks of the story were: GameStop, two financial phenomenons, the online discussion preceding the squeeze, and the possible « sociological » causes. Your edits make it way more scattered and difficult to locate information. In particular, the explainer on GameStop also cannot be located by looking at the TOC and the financial theory explainer is now floating alone, not tied to any Level 1 title, which I think is weird (it seems pretty clear to me that it is part of the « Background »).
 * Shorting is not a term of the art. Short selling is..
 * In general it is not recommended to add multiple links to a single Wiki article within an article (MOS:REPEATLINK).
 * Also it seems like you italicised some Ref names? Why did you do that? 🤔
 * That is fine. The new structure was less than desirable w.r.t. placement of "Short selling and short squeezes". Any italic refs probably come from glitches in the Visual Editor. The first mention of short selling can be linked because it comes before the section on short selling. But Shorting does redirect properly. Short selling is fine too. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for your latest edit, which add clarity.--JBchrch (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Given the issue seems to be resolved, I hope you don't mind me removing my username from the section heading. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course.--JBchrch (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Summarising which other entities gained from this event in the lead
Some of Wall Street's largest asset managers were able to realize gains because of this situation, and company executives made huge profits on selling their shares. I was thinking it would be good to summarize that in the lead, to show who gained from this situation, and who lost. BeŻet (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I thought the information was not sufficiently notable and central to this story to be included in the lead, which is already pretty long. Let's see if other editors think differently.--JBchrch (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All good, your removal was in good faith. Just want to hear what others think. Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
linked to from Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard to gain input ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add a section under responses called "Conspiracy Theorists" to explain the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that are circulating in relation to the GameStop short squeeze. This is the text I would like to add: According the Anti-Defamation League, as the GameStop event played out, a small segment of social media users blamed Jews for supposedly rigging the system and manipulating the global economy through control of finance, government and media. This includes Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, who called the GameStop short squeeze “fantastic stuff”. He wrote, “It is the epitome of the way Jews operate in Western, white countries, simply looting us all”. He continued, “beating them at their own game like this, costing them billions of dollars...is one of the funniest things anyone could ever do – even if the government is just going to tax you with inflation to get them all their money back”. Other similar conspiracy theories echoing harmful, centuries-old, antisemitc tropes circulated on platforms such as Reddit, Twitter, and Telegram. I would like to cite this ADL article: https://www.adl.org/blog/gamestop-stock-spike-awakens-classic-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories Please note: I work for the ADL. If you take a look at the article, I believe it is well-researched and fairly presented. I am open to other thoughts on where this content would fit most suitably. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ADL blog is not a good source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, I trimmed the text a little bit since the consensus here is to follow strictly WP:NOTEVERYTHING. , there is consensus that the ADL is a reliable source and its blog falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, although it is true that it would be better to also cite a respected secondary source.--JBchrch (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Also, it is attributed.--JBchrch (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and, that seems to be quite a lot of weight, a separate section dedicated to fringe theories and antisemitic statements, quoted verbatim. I'd also argue that, while ADL is a reliable source, using them as the only criterion whether content involving themselves is relevant seems questionable to me. , you have declared a conflict of interest caused by working for ADL, leaving me confused when looking at this: Can you confirm if ADL is actually interested in quoting antisemitic conspiracy theories in completely unrelated articles on Wikipedia? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I invite to this discussion as they have reverted the content addition before this discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you take a look at the article I cited, the conspiracy theories are directly related to the GameStop short squeeze, and therefore are relevant to this article. As the article I cited mentions, both prominent neo-Nazis like Anglin, as well as anonymous users across multiple mainstream social media platforms are spreading these antisemitic conspiracy theories as they relate to GameStop. The ADL article provides direct references, images, and quotes from primary sources. I do state that I work for ADL, however I don't have a personal or professional agenda, and genuinely believe it is relevant to contribute to Wikipedia about the cultural impact of incidents such as the GameStop short squeeze. Do you dispute the accuracy of the content or why it is relevant? I'm not sure I understand what the issue is.OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I made the WP:BOLD judgement call that this information was notable enough to be included in this article. I did not simply implement the 's request blindly. I think that conspiracy theories and racist theories being widely shared on social media, as established by a reliable advocacy group (and explicitly attributed to it) was a notable and interesting information for the readers. However, I do admit that it's not that important to keep this section to me since no general perennial source has reported this information. Also, I don't understand why you question 's intentions since he/she ended up acting in accordance with WP:PSCOI?--JBchrch (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, there are prominent flat-earthers, prominent neo-nazis and prominent lunatics. None of them should be quoted in this prominent fashion, as it creates an unduly large forum for their nonsense. I was sure the ADL agrees about this – I rarely ever address such personal issues in a content discussion, but I believe you should discuss these concerns with ADL and see if they agree. I'm relatively certain they'll do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think there is an argument that making these phenomenons visible and known is very important, even if it implies giving a forum to questionable opinions. But I have literally 0 expertise in this area so I'll stop right here...--JBchrch (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to silence you, and I do see that argument. I also rarely discuss politics and antisemitism on Wikipedia; a discussion like this one happens perhaps once in a year to me. The discussion will probably be noticed by experienced editors of this topic area sooner or later, and their input would be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, and you didn't silence me at all. And I see your point as well, naturally. Let's see what other editors think.--JBchrch (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very concerned about undue weight in this regard. Virtually no media outlets are covering this economic event in relation to anti-Semitism. I think at the very least giving an entire subsection to the unfounded conjecture of the world's worst people is undue (even if it supposedly serves a journalistic, informative purpose rather than advocating their hideous views). I suppose one could argue that Anglin, as unfortunately as it comes, is a "public figure," and at most I would perhaps support including only his view in the relevant section. However, I would still personally argue that even a passing mention of him is undue unless other news sources prominently report on this trend. I also disagree with the idea that it's possible to not have a professional agenda in this regard, when OP is using the Wikipedia article to promote ADL's new report, in a sense similar to bookspam. Regardless, this entire incident needs to be handled with exceptional tact, which means possibly calling in an admin. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , since you and are not in favour of including it and I am somewhat on the fence (given that this was not covered by general perennial sources), could we establish that the consensus is to leave this out of the article until covered by reliable, independent sources? If this can advance the discussion in any way, let me also add that I am a Jew.--JBchrch (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, and while can certainly speak for themselves, I expect they will as well. As always, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Same – thank you very much for the cordial discussion in a potentially highly controversial topic area. I'm still curious if ADL really supports the addition; I have a feeling the entire request will be retracted as soon as OceanicFeeling123 has discussed it with their employer. At least I'd be surprised if this "publicity at any price" approach is really supported by the organization. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ADL is not a news organization put an organization representing a particular political viewpoint. I think groups like ADL were originally used as sources for fringe racist groups, but it ends up being a slippery slope so that they're being used on any page now. ADL alone doesn't denote any notability to this topic at all. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Should not be included. This is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: how significant is the opinion expressed in the Daily Stormer to the overall topic? The text added said it represented "a small segment of social media users." The ADL is the only reliable source that wrote about it. The ADL and a number of other sources specialize in covering far right activity and are useful as sources for articles about them. But there is no reason why everything the far right says about every major event should be added to its article. TFD (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Impact on involved entities
It seems surprising that there's no mention of the situation of those who joined the rush late and bought Gamestop at or near the top of the market. They must surely be sitting on large paper losses, or (depending how they financed their purchases) have taken large losses already. This is the classic bubble position, as seen in the 1929 crash and other market disruptions, and the effects can be severe and lasting, particularly on those who invested their savings or borrowed to invest. I would therefore dispute the neutrality of this section, since it appears to be acting as a cheerleader for those who chase stock market bubbles, to their own cost and to the benefit of more savvy players. Chrismorey (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, good point. I don't think it was intentional, just that the article needs updating.--JBchrch (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yellen
I have removed some highly speculative content about Janet Yellen ("some reporters raised concern over a potential conflict of interest in regards to Yellen"). Putting aside the weasel wording here, I think that this content, which is BLP-implicating, is far too speculative to include. It also goes beyond what the (decent) sources say. The good sources do not indicate that Yellen has been involved directly in this matter at all, and in fact suggest the opposite - see, e.g., Reuters ("The Treasury secretary normally does not get involved in matters involving individual stocks and concentrates instead on broad systemic risks to the financial system, which the department monitors through daily market surveillance. 'Secretary Yellen of course will abide by her ethics agreement and ethics pledge in all instances,' Treasury spokesman Calvin Mitchell said. He did not indicate how she would approach the specific Citadel issue."). Neutralitytalk 01:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will answer you tomorrow but for the benefit of advancing the discussion in the meantime, I invite other editors to read the sources here and this one.--JBchrch (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The second Reuters link just says that Yellen participated in a meeting of many regulators (SEC, CFTC, Fed, and NY Fed) on market volatility in general and that the Treasury Department's ethics lawyers cleared it in advance; it specifically indicates that she didn't "deal with specific firms." In fact, that article doesn't even mention the phrase "conflict of interest" at all. Neutralitytalk 01:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the weasel wording, obviously, but the Reuters article provided by itself speaks to the existence of a serious COI allegation in regards to Yellen, one which the Reuters article is not making originally. I also want to clarify something else that's unclear in OP's post: at no point did the diff ever allege Yellen was linked to the squeeze; only that she had taken a lot of money from Citadel, which led people to question her neutrality, all of which is absolutely, verifiably true. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote the actual content from the piece that you contend "speaks to the existence of a serious COI allegation in regards to Yellen." Neutralitytalk 02:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Arguably the last thing new U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wants to take up during her first days in office is a financial market imbroglio involving one of her last private sector business relationships. But as hedge fund Citadel LLC emerges as one of the key actors in the trading frenzy last week involving GameStop Corp - and questions arise over whether the activity exposes deeper risks for the financial system - Yellen could find herself pulled into the fray... A sticking point for her to clear, though, may be $700,000 in speaking fees she accepted from Citadel, as recently as last fall... After ethics violations dogged the Trump administration, some groups are urging Yellen to pre-emptively seek a waiver, and set a precedent." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note the headline: "GameStop saga may provide early test of Biden administration ethics pledges". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So nothing at all supporting the existence of any "COI allegation" much less a "serious" one; it's speculation: "Yellen COULD find herself pulled into the fray" and "MAY provide early test." And in fact, the only mention of the phrase "conflict of interest" at all in that piece says: Neutralitytalk 02:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said it was the definitive source; it's merely the one you provided. Here's some more sources.  Also, the use of "could" and "may" in those contexts  is for Reuters to avoid predicting a future ethics investigation or recusal (in a similar way to WP:CRYSTALBALL), and Painter's opinion is one of many on the subject; if he thinks Yellen's OK, fine, but it's not the end-all-be-all of the discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You identified a particular Reuters article as supporting the existence of a "serious" "COI allegation." It did not. Nor do any of the three sources you linked just now. Neutralitytalk 02:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. I think the quote I provided supports the claim, but you're free to disagree with that. Here's a quote from the Slate piece which I think supports it as well: "The point of ethics rules—and of concepts like "conflict of interest" and "appearance of conflict of interest"—is that no one can know for sure what's in a decision-maker's heart as they make decisions. Possibly even the decision-maker doesn't know! But it’s easier to be neutral toward someone if they haven't given you six or seven figures' worth of money for talking to them a few times." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote you provided doesn't say that anyone alleged any impropriety at all against Yellen, nor do the other acceptable news sources. As for the Slate piece, opinion columns get basically no weight in advancing any claim. But even the Slate source doesn't allege that Yellen did anything improper. Neutralitytalk 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Bloomberg source absolutely does ("the question last week for the new press secretary was this: would Janet Yellen, now Treasury secretary, recuse herself from the matter given the hundreds of thousands of dollars she'd collected in speaking fees from Citadel?"), and the fact that Painter is being asked directly whether or not this was a conflict of interest, and even further, that Psaki and a Treasury spokesman are being asked whether Yellen will recuse herself, should prove at a bare minimum that there are newsworthy allegations of conflict of interest. And with regard to columns, what are you talking about? If a New York Times columnist published a column headlined "Janet Yellen has a conflict of interest," could we not take that to be proof of a serious allegation? Slate is generally considered reliable, and this article literally uses the term "conflict of interest." Seriously, at what point do you not think we still need more? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A question to a press secretary about a potential recusal simply isn't an allegation of COI. As for Painter, he also never suggested that Painter has a COI. For us to say that there is a "potential COI" the sources have to say that unequivocally. As for Slate, the problem isn't the publication: it's that news articles and opinion articles are treated differently. Neutralitytalk 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that opinions need to be attributed. Hence some reporters.--JBchrch (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we get into WEASEL and UNDUE issues. Neutralitytalk 16:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain specifically how these policies apply to this particular matter? It's an honest question. Because WP:WEASEL states "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source" and WP:UNDUE states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".--JBchrch (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's undue because there's no suggestion of any actual impropriety, there's no suggestion that Yellen was involved in any specific action as to Gamestop or Citadel, and the most that any good source says is that her past speaking fees could place her in an awkward position in the future. WP:BLP also says we must avoid "giving undue weight to recent events"&mdash;that principle has even greater force when talking about speculation about future events. Neutralitytalk 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said that Yellen was involved in any specific action as to Gamestop or Citadel? Again, once more, there are concerns, that she is in a situation of conflict of interest. --JBchrch (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly: since no source suggested that Yellen took any specific action, it's undue, off-topic, and speculative here. Vague "concerns" about a "situation" don't belong here, and they especially don't belong given the BLP and NOTNEWS principles. We don't do innuendo. Neutralitytalk 17:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems what was described was regarding an event that already happened with the potential "COI" being ongoing. My question is how is this off-topic to the squeeze? UNDUE would be more applicable if it weren't for the fact that the only substantiated viewpoint in sourcing was Yellen's payout from Citadel and implications. The BLP argument is stronger than UNDUE in my opinion but at the same time this isn't a BLP article. On the matter of speculation: authors' and journalists' [often one-liner] speculation, conjecture, own explanations, and personal ideas in books and articles, even when unsubstantiated by anything (unlike this scenario) and demonstrably wrong, are regularly and heavily used on Wikipedia. While it's true that just because this type of editing may be the norm doesn't mean it should be propagated, the content regarding Yellen is still pertinent to the Robinhood-Citadel situation. We don't specifically have to call Yellen's situation a "potential conflict of interest" even if it's what sourcing says, but the Citadel payout at least is not controversial nor the result of an author of any source rationalizing on their own to make the conclusion that a payout happened. The suggested edit here may be fitting . Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said the White House reporters, the Reuters reporters, or Painter are the ones who alleged it. But there have been allegations of conflict of interest, as evidenced by the fact that "some groups are urging Yellen to pre-emptively seek a waiver, and set a precedent", and the Slate article, which literally says that in the view of the author, Yellen cannot be neutral as she has taken thousands of dollars from Citadel. If there was not an existing allegation, why else would reporters be asking the question? And to address your other point, here's WP:RSOPINION, to the letter: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." From that article, we know it is at least one person's opinion that Yellen has a conflict of interest. Isn't that what we were trying to prove? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of "reading into" the source that we avoid (WP:RS). The text must directly be supported by the cited source, not be Wikipedia editors' interpretation of that. And as for - we aren't trying to "prove" anything; our task is to assess what the sources say and what is proper weight for this article. Neutralitytalk 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My individual commentary is not what's needed here; these citations speak for themselves, though I still think that's a legitimate question I posed. As for the "prove" point: you contended a piece of information, and I am trying to argue that it is substantial and important enough to merit inclusion. But overall, those points were frivolous, and certainly not the takeaway from above. You still have not addressed how exactly certain groups calling for Yellen to take actions to avoid COI re Citadel and a Slate writer saying outright that he believes Yellen has an inherent conflict of interest re Citadel does not substantiate the initial claim (however vaguely it was worded) that some people alleged Yellen to have a COI. Also see the additional source I've provided at the bottom, which says this even more clearly. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree with AllegedlyHuman that there clearly were allegations of a COI that were reported in reliable sources, and that the sources provided do indeed support the existence of a COI allegation that was at least serious enough that several major sources covered it. Loki (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources "allege a COI." For a serious BLP accusation you need sourcing, and very strong sourcing in fact. The most that any decent sources says is that Yellen might, at some point, be placed in an awkward position. None of the sources alleges that Yellen intervened with respect to any particular company. Neutralitytalk 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See my answer to that argument below.--JBchrch (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And see my response. Neutralitytalk 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to be matter-of-fact (not withstanding issues such as circular reporting which doesn't appear to be the case here) in the available business journalism sourcing that at the very least, Yellen received a substantial amount of money from Citadel. If the problem in question is whether or not the specific wording "potential conflict of interest" should be used because it has certain BLP concerns, then I think an argument could be made there though WP:EUPHEMISM tends to warn against euphemistic language. "Monitoring the situation" regarding a company that gives you a large sum of money with a couple of the provided sources specifically describing it as a conflict of interest could certainly be described as "potential conflict of interest" in the article as it had been previously. However, I agree a better way to describe the situation without "potential conflict of interest" should be doable while still getting the point across. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , the only way to write this bit in a way that would address your concerns would be to state: On January 27, 2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and others in the Biden administration were monitoring the situation [...]. Yellen has received $810,000 from Citadel after the end of her term as Chair of the Federal Reserve, as well as $7 million in total from various firms for public speaking appearances. A spokesman U.S. Treasury stated that Yellen "will of course will abide by her ethics agreement and ethics pledge in all instances. However, stating this information plainly, without qualifying it as a "report of conflict of interest", and simply juxtaposing these facts one after the other is clearly implying that Yellen is corrupt and the Treasury doesn't care. Surely, this can not be what you intend. RE: WP:WEASEL, the policy states that Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.. But we could also write "News medias have reported [...]" or "News outlets have raised concerns [...]". Anyway, it seems to me like there is some consensus that my edit was acceptable, but I will let other editors confirm or suggest another way to proceed.--JBchrch (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that this doesn't belong in the article on the current sourcing. The sources contain no suggestion whatsoever that Yellen took action as to any particular company; there is just some speculation that she might, eventually, be put in an awkward position. Unless that actually comes to pass, or there are other future developments, this doesn't belong in this article. Neutralitytalk 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand seem to be misunderstanding what conflict of interest is. COI is not an action, it's a position or a situation. And we have ample sourcing for asserting—once again—that "some reporters raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest".--JBchrch (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, it's (1) irrelevant because the sources don't explicitly say there are "concerns over a potential conflict of interest" (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BLP) and (2) if there's no action beyond speculation as to "concerns" about a "potential" COI, then inclusion is not appropriate weight for this article (WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT). Neutralitytalk 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of the policies. In any case, if you conclude, based on the policies, that we should not include in this article a situation that has been reported by several perennial sources and has been asked about to Jen Psaki at the White House press briefing, than frankly we should just WP:IGNORE them.--JBchrch (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not going to "ignore all rules" to supersede BLP or to shove speculation in the article. Neutralitytalk 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding another source which directly describes this as a conflict of interest in the first sentence. (Out of an abundance of caution, I checked the source with WP:RSP, which does not have it included. Therefore, I feel OK citing this.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Federalist is certainly not a RS for this. Neutralitytalk 16:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, this is something I was concerned may be an issue, which is why I checked WP:RSP. However, there is no consensus there to support your claim. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that a source is not listed at WP:RSP does not mean that the source is reliable. This is made very clear on that page. Neutralitytalk 16:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And your gut doesn't get to decide if a source is unreliable. (Instead, we need a lot of people's guts). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Federalist is a commentary website with a strong and universally acknowledged political lean, so yes, it is unreliable. If you want to go to WP:RSN, you're welcome to do that. Neutralitytalk 17:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

, you are WP:STONEWALLING this discussion and I think that it's time for you to suggest how we should move forward to achieve consensus. My proposition is to revert this edit, since the paragraph in question seems to reflect the broad consensus on the issue.--JBchrch (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I'm clearly not. I've explained in detail above the problems with this content - on grounds of sourcing, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. Our BLP policy is very clear: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.... Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and material affecting living people must be "written conservatively" and must not give "undue weight to recent events." In terms of my suggestion for "how we should move forward," I've been quite clear: preserve the status quo and leave the contentious BLP content about Yellen&mdash;which is really ancillary to the subject of this article&mdash;out. Neutralitytalk 17:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case the appropriate step is to move to WP:DRN. I will request dispute resolution in a few hours, unless someone else has the time to do it beforehand.--JBchrch (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article on Janet Yellen recently added some mention of this. The current revision says: "Between 2018 and 2020, Yellen had received over $7 million in speaking fees from financial companies such as Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and the Citadel hedge fund after leaving the Federal Reserve.[64][65] She's pledged to get official permission before taking part in any federal regulatory decisions involving companies that had paid speaking fees to her to avoid any conflicts of interest.[65]" In particular, the second sentence balances the first, making the paragraph more neutral - however, an isolated statement that Yellen had received money from Citadel raising concerns of a conflict of interest would sound biased. I think that since the conflict of interest has been raised now in several sources, it should be included in the article. Moreover, it seems like a historically interesting tidbit for one studying public perception of the Gamestop story and the government's reaction, so I would like to see it included for that reason as well. Of course, this inclusion should not be worded so as to imply that her future actions will be swayed by the money she received; that is, it should be followed by some balancing statement as in the example above. Burritok (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

, let's put this thing to bed once and for all. In view of the consensus, I propose we cut the bureaucracy short and add to the article Between 2018 and 2020, Yellen had received over $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel. Yellen received and ethics waiver before attending a meeting with financial regulators to discuss the volatility surrounding the short squeeze. This language is inspired directly from the Janet Yellen article. Sources are reliable, in-context, and no "own words" has been added to them. I hope we can agree that it's unnecessary to bother people with an RfC about this.

--JBchrch (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Here is a version I would be OK with: Yellen convened a meeting of financial regulators, including the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to discuss the volatility surrounding the short squeeze. Because Yellen had received speaking fees from Citadel before becoming treasury secretary, she sought and received permission from Treasury Department ethics lawyers before convening the meeting. The regulators were not seen as likely to view the volatility as creating any systemic risks.


 * --Neutralitytalk 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As an outside party, if it helps with this dispute, Neutrality's proposed version seems fine to me Reyne2 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — ✅ and thank you. Glad we could work this out.--JBchrch (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) And I hope it's in the correct place.--JBchrch (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Burry Gains
Hi. I want to add Michael Burry in the article. The current edit was reverted:

Investor Michael Burry, who paved the way for the short squeeze by investing significantly in GameStop since 2019, owned 1.7 million shares by late September and exited at around $169, making a profit of approximately $250 million.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong? The article says and goes on to explain how Burry paved the way for everything that followed including DFV buys. It also says Scion had 1.7 million shared and exited on the Monday so just before the price reached 169. Can you please explain what is it I misunderstood? There are other sources by the way echoing the same statements. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I reverted your edit because the $250 million figure is pure speculation from a marginally reliable source (WP:BI): Still, if he sold Scion's entire stake at Monday's high of $159, he made more than $250 million in profit. The only reliables sources on Michael Burry I could find are this Bloomberg article and this Washington Post article, that only state that Burry invested in GameStop in 2019, but don't confirm when he sold the stock or how much profit he made. The Bloomberg article cites an interesting, and pretty unique, critical comment. So the only additions that I thought were appropriate for this article are this edit and this edit. Maybe we could add that as of January 27, 2021, Burry is "neither long nor short" on the stock? Not sure that this would be extremely useful given that it means "we have no info".--JBchrch (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Aha, alright, yes no need to add if we don't know how much he exited and when. I see the critical comment, and the passing mention in edit1. Can you expand on his role more? He was the first "big" investor and he was involved publicly and influenced many other investors small and big. The article didn't have a single mention of him and now we do but can you expand the sentence in edit1 using the same bloomberg source? It also says he "paved the way" and explains his influence, but this is not reflected in the article except for a small comment at the end of a paragraph. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally I would love to, but it looks to me like I don't have good enough sources for that at the moment. The Bloomberg article only states helped lay the foundations for an epic retail-investor frenzy, which is far removed from stating something notable BTW I have the feeling that the original version was "laid the foundation" and that it was struck down by editors. Similarly, it seems like the Washington Post article intentionally avoids making any sort of causal connection between Burry and the squeeze: But his letter was the first public indication that the smart guys on Wall Street were missing something about GameStop. He wasn’t the only one who saw it. Weeks earlier, an anonymous figure, whose views, aired on a Reddit message board, would ultimately.... Finally, there was already some WP:BLP-related dispute on this talk page, so I want to be careful about statements implicating BLPs. But let's see if other editors think differently.--JBchrch (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , The article is missing the fact that GameStop bought 34 million shares at $5 (suggested by Burry), a significant decrease in float. Burry sold some stock at $5 in May 2020.
 * As of 15 January 2021, some of the directors had sold some thousand shares each, and some were holding tens or hundreds of thousands of shares. We will have to wait to see if any internal shares are reported to have been traded after 15 January 2021. Entry and exit borders are notable when timing is critical, as here. We can report what is known, but it's important to report the details correctly to avoid misunderstanding, and that's not easy with so many different sources reporting some of the things differently while missing others. TGCP (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)